tet 
gallons of water, while another will make it 1 pound to 160 or even 100 
gallons for the destruction of the same insect. One recommends two 
sprayings for the codling moth, another three, and another says spray 
often enough to keep the fruit covered with a layer of the poison, so 
as to be sure of killing the secord brood. Some advise hellebore for 
the pear slug, while others prefer one of the arsenites; and still 
another would use quicklime or simply road dust. Surely there is 
need of more method and uniformity in our work and in our recom- 
mendations for the control of particular insects. By free discussions 
at these meetings much can be accomplished to this end. 
This consideration of ‘* best methods of work” as well as the object 
expressed in the next clause, namely, ‘‘to give opportunity to indi- 
vidual workers of announcing proposed investigations, so as to bring 
out suggestions and prevent unnecessary duplication of work,” brings 
upon us the importance of systematic cooperation in our investiga- 
tions. Cooperation has been urged upon us at many of the meetings 
of this organization, but I do not see that much progress has been 
made in that direction. Iam strongly impressed with the feeling that 
we are falling short of our possibilities by neglecting to cooperate 
more in our work. It may be best to hold to some very restricted 
line at first, and then experience will indicate other and broader 
methods. 
Probably one of the chief difficulties of cooperative work is that 
each wishes to plan his own experiments and publish the results; then 
he does not have to share honors with another. Such a feeling is not 
altogether to be condemned. Neither is it necessary to so plan our 
cooperation as to make it essential to remove credit from him to 
whom it belongs. Let us suppose two entomologists are planning 
independently to test the effect of insecticides upon foliage. Each 
carries through his experiments and publishes the results of his 
labors. They are still independent experiments, the results of one not 
supporting or contradicting to any great extent the results of the other. 
Had each known what was being planned by the other, they could have 
arranged to carry out their experiments so that they would be largely 
duplications of each other, and when the results were published we 
should have double evidence upon the points under consideration 
where results agreed; and where they disagreed, we might be able to 
find in the different conditions the reason for it. Such a cooperation 
would bring results of far greater value than those obtained by inde- 
pendent experimentation, and neither party would lose any glory; in 
fact, each would receive more credit because of the better conclusions 
that could be drawn from the work. And then how carefully every 
conclusion would be reached and backed by positive proof for fear 
that the other party might get different results! Such duplication as 
this is of the utmost importance to establish scientific truth, and 
